Posted
by
timothyon Saturday March 15, 2014 @03:27AM
from the ok-mom-stop-running-away dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Those planning a weekend break in Budapest take note. From 15 March anyone taking photographs in Hungary is technically breaking the law if someone wanders into shot, under a new civil code that outlaws taking pictures without the permission of everyone in the photograph. According to the justice ministry, people taking pictures should look out for those 'who are not waving, or who are trying to hide or running out of shot.' Officials say expanding the law on consent to include the taking of photographs, in addition to their publication, merely codifies existing court practice. However, Hungary's photographers call the law vague and obstructive, saying it has left the country of Joseph Pulitzer and photography legend Robert Capa out of step with Europe."

No these laws are the similar to those of many European countries. Google has had to pay fines over the street maps, and blur all faces and license plates, but it is perfectly possible as it has been done for many countries.

Kudos to the Hungarian lawmakers... wish other countries would follow suit. As for google maps, they should get an exception from the govt. and later remove people from photos using software. It may cost extra time and money, but it's possible and worth it.

Not just tourists, but pretty much anyone. I take my kids to the playground and go to take a photo of them. I line it up just right with nobody else but then a kid runs into the shot. Do I a) Delete the photo? b) Approach the kids' mother to ask permission to keep the photo? or c) Don't care because the kid is in the background? (Hint: My answer would be c.)

What if I get home before realizing that the kid was in the shot? What if the kid was too blurry to be recognizable? Is it only the kids' face th

We have a very similar law in Germany, the impact is far less dramatic than the article suggests. Just don't take pictures of people who obviously don't want to be in your photo and you're fine - taking a photo of a large crowd where no person stands out in particular isn't forbidden.

Your law may not be properly upheld in practice but that does not change the situation of Germany being in the very small club of countries where the art of street photography is effectively illegal or at least very cumbersome.

Your law may not be properly upheld in practice but that does not change the situation of Germany being in the very small club of countries where the art of street photography is effectively illegal or at least very cumbersome.

Yes, and they keep constantly weeping about all the street photography they miss out. Well, actually, they don't. It seems they like their law like that. For some reason, people assume that street photography, or being able to shoot photos of whoever you want, is a right nobody would

I agree that street photography is not some kind of unalienable right. However, I do NOT agree there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public space, not even in Germany. With the law as it currently is (though not as it is currently enforced), photo-journalism in public spaces becomes quite a hassle. If we'd all live by the law, our era would effectively become a rather dark one in history; for example just about any photograph depicting the demolishing of the Berlin Wall would have been illegal.

However, I do NOT agree there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public space, not even in Germany.

Of course there is, the expectation is just different than at home. The problem with photos is that they can be used to track your movements after the fact, and as technology improves this is slowly but surely becoming utterly trivial. There is no expectation that you are not seen by other pedestrians but there is the expectation that the NSA can't get a list of all persons who's gaze lingered longe

But in Germany there is no cultural problem with photography. I've done a lot of street shooting there. Any restrictions are legal techicalities not of consequence to the average person.

Now try shooting in a country where there is a cultural aversion to being photographed. As soon as I raised my camera in a beautifully exotic Seoul farmers's market, every person in the area dived for cover. In modern, high-tech parts of the city there was no problem, so this seems to be a back-country phenomenon.

Actually, as any professional photographer can tell you, in most countries you're not allowed to use someone's image without a modeling release. In addition, if you take pictures of property that is distinctive (like the London "Ghurkin") you need a property release as well.

The only exception to this rule is if the images are "editorial" usage -- e.g. as in a news story, and in some cases artistic photos may also be exempt.

Snapshots you take as a tourist are sort of a grey area. Technically you need a model release to take someone's picture but from a practical standpoint people won't go through the trouble of suing you.

if you are an amateur and don't intend to publish or make money from the work, you do not need a model release.

its good courtesy but in most countries, you don't need to ask permission if this is your personal collection. in the US, its definitely true that if you are in public, you don't need any release for non-pro image captures.

Well it's a grey area. Technically if you take someone's photo you need a model release stating they know what the image is going to be used for. If you take a snapshot of me, and I find it on your Flickr account, I can have it taken down.

However, we get into an area where it's not likely to be enforced. I'm probably in a million different tourist photo albums across the world, and I've never once spotted my image online.

If you take a snapshot of me, and I find it on your Flickr account, I can have it taken down.

Try to do that with a newspaper photo, wise guy. Also, nobody should have this right with Flickr if it's unfeasible with other media. It's the same kind of bullshit as demanding that writers shouldn't be allowed to write a news portrait if you don't want them to. Libel aside, that used to be protected. (But yes, I'm sure politicians would jump on that.)

Well, you can delude yourself with that, if you want to. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the United States has proclaimed that "First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable". In light of that, I'd like to see you arguing to the judge that just because I wrote my article on Google+ and posted source photos on Imgur, that somehow makes my piece of investigative reporting "not journalistic expression".

Why does a newspaper get protections that I don't? And don't quote "freedom of the press" since that means everyone has the freedom to publish, not that there is some institution called "the press" that gets special freedom.

id add that the local city/state laws might be different on model releases for commercial use, but that they are certainly not universal through the US, just as we see with our "wiretap" laws.. check your local listings, subject to change.. presume that you wont get arrested/sued for wiretapping someone when you video tape them on the street.

Just to avoid confusion, the New York Supreme Court is the trial-level court of general jurisdiction in the State of New York, unlike the "Supreme Court" in most other states, which is usually the highest court.

Not completely true. In the case in question street photography is billed as an editorial type of photography (and therefore a grey area).

That does not mean as a Pro you never have to get a model release. No stock photography site will actually accept your submissions without one.

In addition, other photography laws still apply even if you are not a pro. If for instance, you decide to take naked pictures of your 18 year old girlfriend, anti-child pornography laws require you to have proof that she's over

Actually, as any professional photographer can tell you, in most countries you're not allowed to use someone's image without a modeling release.

Except that TFA talks about taking photographs. In most countries, you can apparently either ask people later, or edit them out, or simply leave some of the photos unpublished. If I were to go with how I understand what the new Hungarian law means, you're not even allowed to edit stuff out, you have to painstakingly take care that it won't get into material in the first place, or you'll have instacrime if you notice someone in the frame and decide to go with it anyway.

No, there are usually exceptions for that type of photography. Also there are typically exceptions for people of special interest (that is, if you photograph a politician, he cannot forbid you you to publish it, at least not on the ground of that law) and for certain other common cases.

Not unless you use a hidden camera. If you use a visible camera and no one objects, you can assume their implicit permission. Hidden camera though, yes, that would be illegal, so would google glass on most European beaches.

I don't think you would go to jail for taking a picture of e.g. St. Stephen's Basilica (which would be impossible to take without anyone in the shot) or the Parliament building in Budapest. Firstly, I doubt the punishment would be anything other than a fine. Secondly, I strongly suspect this law has little to do with privacy and tourism and much more to do with e.g. making sure nobody can take pictures of anti-government protests.

TFA is kind of lacking details and I don't follow Hungarian politics that closely, but my first instinct has to do with Viktor Orban's government - he's known for some controversial laws curbing media freedom and changes to their constitution which got the entire EU worried.

The main confusion is that consent can be given in many different ways: implicit consent is still a consent and the article mentions one of their government ministers saying you are fine as long as nobody is explicitly asking you not to take a picture.

Unfortunately, Hungarian is so hard to understand that even with Google Translate I can't follow their newspapers and columns, so we are at the mercy of second-hand journalism and skimpy stuff such as TFA, but indeed this looks like one of the laws enected to be used selectively against well defined targets.

Meanwhile, don't cancel your Hungarian vacation just yet - it's a lovely country with things to see and do, even without taking a camera:)

P.S. Personally, I welcome this law. When traveling through Hungary, I can stop paying Hungarian vignette (road tax) and when I drive under highway cameras, I'll just wave my arms in explicit objection to having my picture taken:)

Unfortunately, Hungarian is so hard to understand that even with Google Translate I can't follow their newspapers and columns, so we are at the mercy of second-hand journalism and skimpy stuff such as TFA, but indeed this looks like one of the laws enected to be used selectively against well defined targets.

They've just codified what ends up happening if you annoy people by taking their photo just about anywhere else. There's plenty of examples in a lot of place where if it was escalated to the Police then people were asked to delete their photos no matter what the law is.If you are especially masochistic take a camera with a telephoto lens to a beach and see how much force is used to apprehend you.

i dont care about "photographers rights" or any b.s. damn i do not want to be in a photo taken by a stranger! i hide my face (try to) when i walk past idiotic tourists and goddamn "photographers". the thing i hate the most is people who take photos/video in protests. yes why don't you put that up on facebook and alert my boss or the fascist gov't while you're at it.

i wish i lived in hungary. great law. intrusive photography is rude. improving tech has made people rude and idiotic!

Sounds like a man doing things he knows he shouldn't be doing and worried that his boss might see the picture.

Bosses are known to fire/not hire people simply because those people do things they don't like (such as getting drunk at a party). To say that he must be doing something he shouldn't be is to have absolute faith in the rationality of moronic bosses who expect everyone to comply with their arbitrary rules, which is pure idiocy.

Well, I wasn't really defending this law to begin with. Just saying that bosses can be extremely petty.

As for your proposed law, I'm not quite sure how you would write it without it being vague. Bosses need to have at least some leeway to fire people, and if the law is vague, that might give people the ability to sue for practically any reason if they're fired.

The idea might seem good until you realize that unless you have an army of thousands you cannot possibly manage to ask everyone in a wide shot for permissions and in wide shots it's hard to recognize anyone anyway... And if you take it literary a picture from inside a restaurant might include a window and people outside, including people in cars driving by... Good luck obtaining permission from them.

Stupid if you think this is about people. It's about protecting corporations or powerful people that may be upset by photographs and then invoking this law to make embarrassing pictures either go away or become very expensive.

The idea might seem good until you realize that unless you have an army of thousands you cannot possibly manage to ask everyone in a wide shot for permissions and in wide shots it's hard to recognize anyone anyway... And if you take it literary a picture from inside a restaurant might include a window and people outside, including people in cars driving by... Good luck obtaining permission from them.

So it seems we can expect tons of really great landscape photography to come out of Hungary in the foreseeable future as Hungarian photographers become shy loners who avoid contact with other humans whilst doing their work.

So what would work for everyone, for both the people who want to take pictures and for those that don't want their picture taken simply because they were in a public forum? Maybe public "privacy" zones? Seems quite the delimna for me.

That might be the case, I've seen conditions that say something like by entering the event you are concenting to be filmed ect. This was for a rock concert in the uk at sheffield arena. This was posted at every entrance into the place. I would imagine it would be part of the terms and conditions of tickets for the Hungarian GP.

Incidentally a lot of places require you to have public liability cover of several million as a photographer or you will not get access. which kind of makes sense even if most of th

That might be the case, I've seen conditions that say something like by entering the event you are concenting to be filmed ect. This was for a rock concert in the uk at sheffield arena.

The UK has probably the most inconsistent rules for photography of any country.

You can take pictures in public, unless the activity might be deemed private such as holding hands or eating, or might be disrespectful of a famous or powerful person, or is of a child doing something they might want to be kept private. But even then if someone would rather not have it known, such as walking out of a drug rehab center, then even though it would normally be public and newsworthy it isn't exactly public in this ca

Hungary was deprived of an important step in the development of today's Europe: fascism. And they insist on catching up without any shortcuts. Unfortunately I am not joking. As the current government wants Hungary to leave the European Union anyway, they are shamelessly breaking all of its principles. Apparently this is only going to end after the Hungarians have spectacularly lost a war right in the heart of Europe.

Being homeless is now officially a crime. The ruling party quite openly supports pogroms against gypsies. Hungary is quite open about wanting to annex all Hungarian-speaking regions of neighbouring countries. (Ethnic Hungarians in those countries can already obtain Hungarian passports.) The media is censored to such a degree that when the current law came into effect, lots of journalists had to look for a job immediately as they were left with a choice between creeping up the government's posteriors or facing draconian punishment. Even citizens from other European countries cannot by land in Hungary. Austrian farmers who already own land in Hungary are punished when they cross the border in a tractor to cultivate it. When the Swiss Franc rose a lot, causing problems for enormous numbers of Hungarians (and Hungarian institutions) that idiotically had taken Swiss loans because of the low nominal interest rates, Hungary *unilaterally* decided that they only have to pay back these loans to the amount owed theoretically if the exchange rate had been constant. In other words, the Hungarian government unilaterally partially dispossessed the banks of an EFTA country.

The new photography law is just another in a series of rubber laws that criminalise almost everything so that they can be applied selectively to members of the opposition and other likely targets.

Can you cite this, please? I would be very surprised to hear this from Fidesz, as it sounds like an exclusively Jobbik thing. Many people outside of Hungary with only a cursory understanding of the country's dour political situation tend to confuse Fidesz and Jobbik, but the latter party does not have much power (yet).

This is getting in line with the rest of Europe as it gives the same privacy rights that most European countries have. This is nothing new or spectacular, it is common legal status in many countries and doesn't cause nearly the amount of trouble Anglo-saxon privacy haters think.

I was asked for sources on the pogromes against gypsies, and it was questioned that the ruling party was involved. As this was only from memory, here is what I found out with a quick search.

Apparently, the worst incident so far was the one in Gyöngyöspata, a village with 2500 inhabitants and a Jobbik mayor. Jobbik is fascist party comparable to the Greek party Golden Dawn. It does not seem to have been in any government coalition. However, the incident in Gyöngyöspata was so serious that

Hope this induces people... to get the hell out of my shot and let me take the picture with the background and just my wife in the foreground. Shush you inconsiderate bunch of fellow tourists. Walk that bit faster and show us snapshot takers you care.

But it is/was quite clear from the sheer quality, the verbatim quote by which the author is readily retrievable and the trailing... that the text never could have been mine. Also I sort of assumed everyone knew Wodehouse. Reading his work always is a cure against any sort of bad mood.

Yet you might have heard of Jeeves as in "Ask Jeeves" or ask.com. I'd recommend to transcend vindication and instead to cut to the chase. Wodehouse's books are readily available and Fry & Laurie (as in Dr. House) feature in a most brilliant TV adaptation of Wodehouse's work. In short: Jovial upper class gentleman with limited intellectual abilities happens to engage the most intelligent and diplomatic valet imaginable. The story always turns intricate but Jeeves always saves the day and Wooster remains

Maybe this is one of those "You commit at least 3 crimes every day without even realizing it" situations that James Duane proposes.

For most people, most of the time, they will not do anything. But if the authorities decide that you have become inconvenient, then there are numerous instances of you commiting crimes to justify locking you up.

Don't make the mistake of interpreting this law as one aimed to protect the privacy of individuals. If that was the case I would even argue in favor of it.

The ruling party - who will likely win the next elections without trouble due to the state capture level corruption, media control, and rigged election system (an impotent opposition doesn't help) - regard Putin's Russia as an example to follow. They also do everything to kiss his ass despite their actions in Crimea, and despite the long and painful Soviet opression of Hungary and the revolution of 1956 crushed by them. And why? Because they want Russia to expand the power plant in the city of Paks, the biggest infrastructure investment in the history of Hungary ever, without even asking for a quote from other companies or reaching a consensus that it's even needed (green energy will likely be much cheaper by the time the plant is finished). Russia will also kindly provide the loan for the project, making us depend on their good will for decades, because seriously, what could go wrong with that?

Now, what would you think if such a country, with its leader in the pocket of Putin, would enact this law?

According to the law even private individuals can be punished, not just professionals who realize a profit from the pictures. This is dumb at best in the era of smartphones. Obviously, the law won't be enforced to the letter or mean anything for the majority. Nobody will go after tourists, either. But it WILL be used as a possible weapon to prosecute anyone from public servants caught criticising the power to journalists who stick their noses where they shouldn't.

Just a shining example from the recent past. I personally agree that there are things you shouldn't even say in anonymous comments and people should have the right to defend themselves against online abuse. But when a prominent member of the ruling party can sue a commenter for a basically harmless comment and win a huge compensation (even though there is a law in place saying public figures must tolerate more criticism due to their roles), you know something's very wrong. This new law fits in the picture just nicely.

Do come to Hungary as a tourist as it's a lovely place to visit. It's safe too unless you invite girls whom you just met (and who happen to celebrate their birthdays) for drinks. But do come before we silently join the new russian empire. (Sorry for my english, I'm honing my russian instead, it will be very handy soon.)

They have a sense of humour, though. 15th March is our national holiday in celebration of another crushed revolution (1848) for boring things like the freedom of press: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

I guess it's back to old school photograhpy then. 100 years ago, photographs of landmarks didn't have people in then unless they were willing to stand perfectly still for 20 minutes or more. So just get a tripod, set up at your chosen landmark, and open the shutter. None of the people moving around will show up in your picture, and if you want to be in your own photo, just walk in front of the camera and strike a pose that you can hold for a half hour or so.

(1) Get a bunch of your friends together; stand all around in photogenic places so it's impossible to get a shot without you or one of your friends in it; charge to sign the release

(2) Be about to do something that will end your political career, like going to see one of your 6 baby mamas or going to meet someone to pick up your bribe; have a large security detail; have them arrive first, and stand all around so it's impossible to get a shot without one of them in the picture; have them refuse to sign the release

The first should be a wonderful drag on the tourist industry, while the second should be an effective way to prevent people from taking embarrassing pictures.

This seems to be what the population of Europe is clamoring for, and Hungary delivers. Populism at its best. Hungary is simply less constrained by a tradition of democracy and liberty than other European nations. But don't worry, France, Germany, and the UK will catch up.

As a photographer, I feel this is stifling creativity. In the US, it is my right to photograph to my heart's content as long as I am not trespassing, peeping through windows or committing a crime while doing so. That image is copyrighted, and it is up to me to determine how I use it. If I choose to publish and make a profit other than editorial use, I should have a model release (but in artistic works I do not necessarily need it.) The bizarre fear of cameras should be over with by now. There is so m

Hungary is like a rotten tomato amongst European countries. I'm sure the purpose of this law is just another way to take money on tourists who come here. While they making this law you pretty much able to see the whole country on google streetview, including me and my relatives being outside in our garden. When did I gave permission for them to take picture of my house or us? What can I do about it? Nothing.
The amount of corruption and hatred is unbelievable in this country. Probably some rich polititian

It is not the act of carrying a camera that is the problem. Taking pictures is the problem. Walk into some place with a (big) camera, without asking anything will get you into trouble. In the US it will not get you into legal trouble, but you might be asked to leave/stop filming anyway.

I see no difference between someone looking at me in public and someone taking a picture of me in public. I have no expectation of privacy in public. Public is the oposite of private. If you don't want to be photographed while in public it is up to you to obscure your identity and not up to me to be sure I don't capture your image.

I see no difference between someone looking at me in public and someone taking a picture of me in public. I have no expectation of privacy in public. Public is the oposite of private. If you don't want to be photographed while in public it is up to you to obscure your identity and not up to me to be sure I don't capture your image.

This issue has been discussed numerous times on Slashdot, have you been asleep? There are many situations where people are technically in public but nevertheless have an expectation of privacy.

Suppose, for example, you and a group of your friends are walking home at night on a public road, through the woods, with nobody in sight. Will the conversation reflect the technically "public" setting, or will it be more like what one will expect to find in a private setting?

This issue has been discussed numerous times on Slashdot, have you been asleep?

I have been involved with those conversations. My point is that just because a person thinks it should be private does not make it legally so.

Once we acknowledge that there can be an expectation of privacy even in public places, it is entirely appropriate to determine what the limits of that privacy are.

That is your opinion. In my opinion there is no expectation of privacy in a public place therefore nothing to acknowledge. If you don't want something recorded in a public place then don't do it in a public place.

It is entirely appropriate to bar recordings of people made without their permission, with some reasonable exceptions.

I see it as the opposite where "It is entirely appropriate to allow recordings of people made without their permission, with some reasonable exceptions". We

If you don't want something recorded in a public place then don't do it in a public place.

It's not physically possible to remain in a public place for long periods of time without having to relieve oneself. For most of society, this period of time will be between 1 and 4 hours while awake. Many public places do not have bathrooms, and even those that do often have limited hours. If one is in rough terrain, or deep in a public wilderness area, it might not even be physically possible to get to a bathroom, even when they exist, are open, are available, and are in working order.